About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
neil: now we can safely say the nsa more than just kind of broke the law. try thousands of times. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. not just fine. don't take it for me. take it from despise himself. an internal audit out of no less than the national security agency it's often defe 200776 violations of established court orders regarding surveillance on americans, are targets in this country. with the nsa demands in a speech read what anyone else would call ridiculous. hundreds of cases of sposedly unintended interception of u.s. e-mail and phone calls and typographical errors that prompted overly aggressive searches. this group for one thing, not responding to them or even reporting them is quite another. it's not only sloppy but illegal and now we come to find that the smartest intelligence surveillance court that is supposed to keep an eye on them to not even learn about some of these violations until months after the fact willing among constitutional which is kind of like locking the barn door after all the animals left. my friends, step back and ponder the sheer magnitude o
lost in space. this still does not compute because the nsa is replacing human beings with computers to be senseless new bond people does not mean the agency still is not stepping on people. what it is saying is that a machine is not going to leak such news to people. are we not missing here's something? the agency is still spending on people. we are supposed to feel better because it is a machine. it is not human. i am telling you, it is in human. it is still a mess. what do you think of it? >> move like -- moves like this are designed to high accountability. when you remove people from the equation, you can silence people and control them to some extent, but they're is a kind of randomness to people. when you assign machines to do all the information transfer in to manage this you run into problems with the people that the nsa did not know what is going on. look at what is happening with hamper frequency trading were the traders running those algorithms, programs don't always know exactly what they're doing and how the interactions or. you collected things like the bidding bought o
mind the question of how complicit different companies were in the nsa scandal. that is a lit je let jet matt q. but, at same time, google is doing with that data is trying to sell you stuff for the most part. what the nsa is doing is trying to find a reason to put new jail. neil: they can take leaps with that and share that with a lot of folks, that we never intended to happen. katherine thank you very much. now to lawyer who is livid. rebecca rose woodland said that by breaking into your e-mails is breaking the law. rebecca. google says no, this is all part of what you sign up for as a g-mail user, and as a g-mail receiver. >> how can a g-mail receiver sign up anything? neil: apparently, when you open that e-mail, you become vulnerable. >> and i knew? did you know. first of all you don't distinguish where it is from, you don't accept the terms with every e-mail does a come a question, do you accept the terms of that g-mail user's account, they don't get that, if that i want to take my information, aol users all net thrown out to every e-mail user, if they want to save it they can t
don't sit back. fight back. apparently you need not be an open book, and therere ways around the nsa. who knew? i started getting all these e-mails from viewers to tell me we need not take this surveiling digital forensic analyst on how we give the fed defender. all perfectly legal. good to have you. i guess the key is just making sure that our accounts are not accessible. have you do that? >> two things. in the immediate term andong term. you have to recognize that the free and sheep service, these are not going to protect your privacy, everything you send on them and use them as an open book. so that you just need to accept. what you can do is use alternative messaging services. they do cost money, but they will increase your messages and data. i think it's important for two reasons. in the short term you protect the information, especially if your lawyer or a cow or a business person and keep the data private. neil: you are a genius. i am not. what does this mean? >> that protect the security of the law in of your mailbox. they offer this. they send the code to your phone. you als
was in favor of what nsa was doing this operation -- >> you saying he knew? >> i say i find it difficult to believe as an american citizen he did not a clue at extend of what they are doing, he is our commander in chief, he is in charge. iin my mind, how many committees are worth while? >> that is what i was thinking, commissions and their work pile up largely ignored. >> you are putting james clapper in charge of investigating james clapper, he is in charge of investigating -- >> you find that odd? >> bizarre, and i watch that press conference, it was a great defense of obamacare, but a horrible defense of this. because, you are right. no president wants to have another 9/11 on their watch. nobody. they will go to whatever measures they will go to to prevent it from happening, i think measures are way too extreme. i'm not comfortable them. i am opposed to it. it has gone wayyoverboard, so, my attitude is, don't have another commission, you know what you are doing, you don't need t to investigate it, clappr investigating clap ser really clapper is really stupid. stop it. >> why we need t
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)